Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Is Population Reduction,
Not
Science
Contents
INTRODUCTION
4 Defend Mankind from the Satanic Climate-Change Swindle
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
INTRODUCTION
oligarchy, in which the club of billionaires and millionaires live in gross luxury while the mass of the population is to be left in backwardness with sharply reduced
living standards, lower life expectancies, and reduced
cognitive capabilities.
The means to this end is the scare campaign around
man-made climate change, which is supposed to induce
people voluntarily to do without virtually all the achievements of material and social progress through industrialization. The goal of such an eco-dictatorship is the great
transformation of the world economy to the exclusive
use of so-called renewable energy sources, and thus the
decarbonization of the economy, in which both nuclear
energy and fossil fuels disappear as rapidly as possible.
The proof offered for anthropogenic climate change
consists of pre-fixed computer models, in which the desired result is determined in advance, and segments of
historical climate data are selected in such a manner
that they appear to demonstrate the effect of so-called
greenhouse gases caused by mankinds industrial production and agriculture. But numerous scientists have
demonstrated that this game of selecting climate data is
entirely willful and staged for this purpose, and that
computer-based scenarios are being consciously given
out as scientific prognoses. There are many studies
which show this fakery, and make clear that the manmade portion of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is negligibly low, namely 0.018%; but more importantly, that the connection between CO2 emissions
and climate change is unproven, and thus that the entire
argument is based on a spectacular swindle (see Section
II of this Special Report).
4 4
EIR August 2015
sustainability2009.commerzbank.com
periods after these ice ages, etc. result from cosmic radiation in connection with our Suns cycles of activity,
for which the number of sunspots forms a measure of
the Suns energy production; changes in the characteristics of the Earths orbit; and the changing position of
the Solar System in our galaxy, to name only some of
the changing parameters.
What is very well proven, by contrast to anthropogenic climate change, is the connection between the energy-flux density applied in the production process and
the number of human beings which can be supported by
that production process level (see Section III of this Special Report]. By the intended decarbonization of the
world economy combined with simultaneous demonization of nuclear energy, thus reducing society to renewable energy sources, the potential population which can
be maintained at these lower energy flux densities is also
reduced, and goes roughly to that of the pre-industrial
eraa maximum of one billion people.
And just such population reduction is the expressed
intention of, for example, Prince Philip, whose unspeakable statement of his wish to be reborn as a deadly
virus in order best to support this intention, is notorious.
This is also the cynical meaning of Hans Joachim
Schellnhuber, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate
Research (PIK) and lately climate advisor to Pope Francis, whoin the course of the fortunately failed Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009celebrated as a
August 2015
EIR
services. The European Climate Foundation, an institution sponsored by hedge funds whose Board of Advisors Chairman was Schellnhuber, thereupon increased
its financing of climate activists in Germany from 2007
onwards, while he simultaneously advised the EU
Commission on the development of guidelines for CO2
emissions. As an energy advisor to German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, he was presumably responsible for the
German exit from nuclear power after the earthquaketsunami catastrophe of March 11, 2011 in Fukushima.
Interestingly, scarcely one month after the earthquake, on April 7, Schellnhubers German Government
Scientific Advisory Board on Global Environmental
Change (WBGU) published a study with the title: World
in ChangeSocial Contract for a Great Transformation. This was the blunt proposal for a global eco-fascism, a Green world dictatorship in the tradition of
Thomas Hobbes, H.G. Wells, and Carl Schmitt, which
projected the complete decarbonization of the worlds
energy industry. This means the final elimination of nuclear fission, which is advised against; nuclear fusion,
which is claimed to be eventually attainable but too complicated; and the complete abandonment of fossil fuels
such as coal, oil, and natural gas by the year 2050.
The study had been six years in preparation and interestingly was designated as a Master Plan for Social
Transformation by WBGU Chairman Schellnhuber,
although it really should be called a master plan for a
forced imperial consolidation or even master plan for
the collective suicide of the human race.
For Germany, then, this began its exit as a country in
the world community which could contribute something significant, from a scientific standpoint, for the
really existential problems of humanity. This began the
willful elimination of the potential for scientific discovery of necessary knowledge, because it began to direct
human and industrial resources, as well as financial
means, into completely delusory fields of technology
with lowered energy flux densities. Above all, the intellectual potential of students and researchers was thus
absorbed into areas which ultimately represent a dead
end in the development of mankind.
The studys methodological approach fully reflected
the statistical linear thinking of complex computer
models, as they are customarily used by systems analysts, and as we recognized it already, for example, in
the Club of Rome: The computer is programmed so that
the planned result is produced.
One can only recommend that all citizens read this
6 6
EIR August 2015
The fact that CBE Schellnhuber has gotten his program accepted in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
raises the most serious questions as to how this was
possible. For the most recent encyclical, Laudato Si
of Pope Francis, in which anthropogenic climate change
is presented as scientifically certain fact, represents a
complete break with the view of mankind in the Augustinian tradition of the Catholic Church, and with the encyclicals since Pope Leo XIII. Schellnhuber was one of
the three spokesmen who presented the new encyclical
on June 18 in Rome.
At a climate conference organized by the Vatican in
2007, the president of the World Federation of Scientists, Antonio Zichichi, rejected the use of computer
models as completely unsuitable for long-term climate
forecasts on the grounds of the complexity of the problem, and pointed in addition to the multiple influences
of the Solar System and the galaxy on the Earths climate, in opposition to which he characterized the manmade contribution to climate change as absolutely negligible. Several speakers contradicted then-Environment
Minister Ed Miliband of Britain, when he claimed that
the objectives of the British Government were the same
as those of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI
rather those Popes were exactly opposed to birth- and
population control as proposed by the Brundtland Commission Report and the WWF. And even during the Copenhagen Climate Summit of 2009, the Vatican very
clearly attacked the Malthusian tendency of the affair.
With the incorporation of Schellnhubers ideas into
the encyclical and thus the rejection of a serious approach,
the Catholic Church has effectively involved itself in a
EIR
8 8
EIR August 2015
EIR
After having founded the Potsdam Institute on Climate (PIK), Schellnhuber was brought to the United
Kingdom in 2002, to assume the post of Research Director at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, a branch of Oxford Universitys
Tyndall Center. He was also brought on to the Oxford
University Physics Department and the Environmental
Change Institute. He was at the authoritative East
Anglia Climatic Research Unit when it was found that
global warming researchers there were exaggerating
their data for purposes of influencing energy policy.
Schellnhuber organized a Nobel Prize holders Conference on Global Sustainability in 2011, and arrogantly commented then about the East Anglia scandal,
When one has become a Nobel Prize winner ... one is
permitted to speak about moral standards, for then,
when one has been knighted, so to speak, one is raised
above any doubt... video here
Schellnhuber is one of a team of royal climate advisors deployed globally by the Crown, including
Prince Philips advisors Martin Palmer and Sir David
Attenborough. In early 2004, Queen Elizabeth II considered Professor Schellnhuber as the best man for a
sensitive operation to pressure President George W.
Bush into agreeing to the anthropogenic climate-change
swindle. Schellnhuber traveled to Washington, D.C.
along with Prime Minister Tony Blairs top science advisor, Sir David King, who is now the British Crowns
Special Representative for Climate Change, appointed
by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in September 2013. The Bush White House reportedly formally
complained to British Prime Minister Blair about this
mission.
Also in 2004, the Queen traveled to Berlin to open a
British-Germany conference on environmental protection and it was there that she dubbed Schellnhuber a
EIR August 2015
EIR
21
On May 3 of this year, in an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Schellnhuber broadened the
denunciation to fire in general, echoing the rejection
of Promethean fire in the encyclical Laudato Si which
he co-wrote for Pope Francis. In the age of fire, mankind has grown to a certain planetary power... he said.
And thus we are steering on in complete ignorance of
the firewalls of the planetary system. Is there an alternative course? There are many! But all require, not reform,
but rather the early defeat of the fossil-nuclear complex.
Schellnhuber then proposed the remaking of representative democracy: The propagation of international
environmental protection legislation through the UN;
and the reservation of 5-10% of the seats in national
parliaments for appointed ombudsmen for the rights
of future generations. These ombudmen, he suggested,
would organize referenda against the energy policies of
the fossil-nuclear complex.
These statements characterizing the human species
as planetary pollution, and population growth as destroying the planet, indicate the reason for HansJoachim Schellnhubers great usefulness for the British
oligarchy, his positions at the World Bank, Deutsche
Bank, on international committees, and his imposition
on Chancellor Merkels government and the Vatican by
the British Crown.
FIGURE 1
UNBIASED RECORDS
HOCKEY STICK
0.5
Little Ice Age
Medieval
Warm Period
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1000
1200
1600
1800
2000
Hockey Stick
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
1400
0.4
1400
1600
1800
2000
1400
Recent Studies
1600
1800
2000
1800
2000
Greenland Boreholes
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.4
Multiple
Proxies
-0.5
-0.8
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1000
1200
1400
1600
On the one hand, as scientists we are A: featured in the 1990 IPCC report, on the first few pages of Chapter 7,
ethically bound to the scientific Observed Climate Variations and Change as the schematic representation of
method, in effect promising to tell climate change over the past 1,000 years (page 202). B: 2001 IPCC report. C
the truth, the whole truth, and noth- and D: Corrections to the Mass et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern
Hemisphere Average Temperature Series, McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy and
ing but. on the other hand, we are Environment, 2003. E: Cosmic Rays and Climate, by Jasper Kirkby, Surveys in
not just scientists but human beings Geophysics 28, 333375. F: An Inconvenient Truth.
as well we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the publics imaginabalance is between being effective and being
tion. That, of course, entails getting loads of
honest.1
media coverage. So we have to offer up scary
scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might
1,S.H. Schneider, In J. Schell Our Fragile Earth. Discover (Oct.
1989), pp. 45-48.
have Each of us has to decide what the right
46 True Climate Science
FIGURE 2
1.5
1.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
-.5
-.5
-1.0
-1.0
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
US historical temperature records as of 1999, Whither U.S. Climate? James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato,
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ August 1999.
Dr. Schneider had been a participant in a 1975 endangered atmosphere conference organized by Margaret Mead, herself a leading advocate of population
reduction.2 At that conference (which included other
soon-to-be leading climate alarmists, including the man
who later became Obama's science adviser, John Holdren) Mead used her keynote address to express her promotion of this method:
What we need from scientists are estimates,
presented with sufficient conservatism and
plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be
exploited by political interests, that will allow
us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel
the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a
severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to
impending climatic changes by growing thicker
coats.
Recognizing this methodology at the roots of the
entire movement claiming we're facing imminent catastrophic effects from mankind's CO2 emissions, puts
some recent cases of data manipulation and adjust2. The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, 1975 conference
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
August 2015
EIR
mate change catastrophe, the adjustments are consistently biased towards supporting their claims. Lets
look at a few examples.
When was the hottest period of the past century?
The answer to that question would depend upon what
region you are talking about, but it would also depend
upon when you asked that question. For example, in
1999 Dr. James Hansen (then head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which focuses heavily
on climate change) authored an article on climate
change which utilized a graphic of the official US government assessment of average temperature change in
the United States over the past 120 years.4 By the 1999
figures it was recognized that 1998 was a hot year, but
1921, 1931, 1934, and 1953 were all recorded has hotter
years for the United States, with 1934 being over a half
a degree (Celsius) hotter (Figure 2, Box A).
However, if we examine the records provided by
NOAA and NASA today the assessment of temperatures
in the past have been adjusted to lower values, with 1921,
1931, 1934, and 1953 all becoming cooler than 1998.
Such convenient adjustments are not limited to the
historical records of temperature in the United States.
Professor Ole Humlum has analyzed the many adjustments made by the US governments official records of
global air surface temperature (produced by NOAAs
National Climatic Data Center). Through a series of adjustments between May 2008 and February 2012, the
official historical records of global temperature in the
first half of the 20th Century have been systematically
adjusted cooler, and more recent temperatures systematically adjusted hotter accelerating the claimed measured rate of warming solely by adjusting what instrument records were supposed to have said about the past
in 2008, versus what the same instrument records were
supposed to have said about the past in 2012.
Figure 3A depicts the cumulative adjustments to
the historical global temperatures between 2008 and
2015, and Figure 3B analyzes just two specific months,
January 1915 and January 2000, examining how the
historical values of those two dates changed with each
adjustment made between 2008 and 2012.
Most recently, NOAA has released a new revised
data set of adjusted global temperatures, leading to new
claims of increased warming. Again, this is not showing that the latest data from recent months shows more
4. Whither U.S. Climate? James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe
and Makiko Sato, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ August 1999.
August 2015
EIR
FIGURE 4
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Satellite UAH
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Satellite RSS
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
54 'Decarbonization' Fraud
Wind
Between 1994 and 2012, the number of wind turbines in Germany increased from roughly 2,000 to
23,000. Not only do they operate far below capacity,
the output fluctuates wildly. In 2014 Germany's 35,000
megawatts of wind power capacity operates at less than
30% of capacity 90% of the time, and at less than 10%
of capacity 55% of the time (never reaching above
70%).
To illustrate the dramatically varying, and often
minimal, production of power from wind we can examine data from a single month of electricity generation
(August 2014) in Figure 1.
Solar
Figure 1
Electricity generated from all of Germany's wind turbines during the month of August 2014, measured against the advertised
installed capacity. Image adapted from that used by Wolfgang Mller at the 2015 ICCC.
Figure 2
Electricity generated from all of German solar power during the month of August 2014, measured against the advertised installed
capacity. Image adapted from that used by Wolfgang Mller at the 2015 ICCC.
August 2015
EIR
'Decarbonization' Fraud
55
56 'Decarbonization' Fraud